SPECIAL UPDATE: Canadian Bill STILL Poses a Threat to Natural Health Consumers

[Guest guest]

SPECIAL UPDATE:

Canadian Bill STILL Poses a Threat to Natural Health Consumers

_http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/01/special-update-

canadian-bill-still-poses-a-threat-to-natural-health-consumers.aspx?source=nl_

 

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/01/special-update-ca\

nadian-bill-still-poses-a-threat-to-natural-health-consumers.aspx?source=nl

)

 

 

 

Bill C-51 was debated during second reading, the week ending June 13, 2008,

at which time the Canadian government introduced amendments to the bill.

According to the draft discussion paper on the amendments to C-51, written

by Constitutional lawyer Shawn Buckley for the Natural Health Products

Protection Association (NHPPA), the amendments presented by Tony Clement on

June 9,

2008 are far from satisfactory, and do little, if nothing, to protect the

natural health community and users of natural health products.

 

Sources:

* _Proposed Bill C-51 Amendments June 9, 2008_

(http://www.healthycanadians.ca/pr-rp/c51-amend-mod_e.html)

* _Draft Discussion Paper on the Amendments to Bill C-51_

(http://nhppa.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/draft_dp_amendments_bill_c-51.pdf)

 

Dr. Mercola's Comments

 

 

I previously commented on an article from the Vancouver Sun on July 19,

stating that _natural health advocates had defeated a government power-grab_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/19/natural-health-ad\

voc

ates-defeat-government-power-grab.aspx) , forcing Canadian Health Minister

Tony Clement to amend his proposed bill, C-51, which amends and updates the

Canadian Food and Drugs Act.

This _bill was fraught with language that could pose serious threats to the

natural health industry_ (http://www.stopc51.com/c51/legal_review.pdf) , not

just in Canada, but potentially in the U.S. as well due to Codex and the

potential future implementation of the North American Union (NAU). (For more on

Codex and the NAU, please read my first _article on C-51_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-t\

o-be-made-illegal-

in-canada.aspx) .)

Fortunately, I have many well-informed readers who are not shy to tell me

when I’ve missed something, which was exactly the case here, and it appears I

was overly optimistic in my last comment.

After further review of information gleaned from readers well-versed on the

topic, both bill C-51 and bill C-52 are still poised to wreak havoc with the

natural health industry.

As Wendell Phillips said:

 

 

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty—power is ever stealing from the

many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary

enemy

of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be

prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a

people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered

in material prosperity.

 

 

Wendell Phillips, speech in Boston, Massachusetts, January 28, 1852

Not much has changed in the past 150 years, and eternal vigilance against

government corruption still needs to be at the top of everyone’s list today.

Why Amended Version of C-51 Still Poses Threat to Natural Health Industry

Bill C-51 was debated during second reading, the week ending June 13, 2008,

at which time the Canadian government introduced amendments to the bill. I

initially reported that Mr. Clement had listened to the natural health

community

’s concerns and that these amendments would solve the problems created by

the bill. However, I stand corrected, as that is NOT the case.

According to the _draft discussion paper on the amendments to C-51_

(http://nhppa.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/draft_dp_amendments_bill_c-51.pdf)

,

written by Constitutional lawyer Shawn Buckley for the Natural Health Products

Protection Association (NHPPA), the _amendments_

(http://www.healthycanadians.ca/pr-rp/c51-amend-mod_e.html) presented by Clement on June 9, 2008 are

far from satisfactory, and do nothing to protect the natural health community

and users of natural health products.

Concerned Canadians and Americans want the bill (and its successor, bill

C-52) scrapped completely, as either bill accomplish nothing in terms of

protecting consumers, but increases government power to remove products, and

destroy

natural health businesses more or less at will.

One key amendment was to give Natural Health Products (NHPs) its own

category. However, this change actually amounts to nothing at all in practice,

as

merely changing their definition does not by itself change how they’re

regulated.

In fact, rather than creating a third category that is distinct from the

drug category, the amendments actually entrenches NHPs further, as a subset

under the drug category, which does nothing to protect or increase access to

NHPs.

Unfortunately, mainstream media have erroneously conveyed this “third

category†as being distinctly separate from drugs – which is what natural

health

advocates wanted – but that is definitely not the case.

Whether it’s a mistake based on ignorance or more malicious misdirection is

up for debate, but it played a hand in my previous, faulty conclusion that

the natural health industry had accomplished at least a partial victory.

In essence, if bill C-51 were to pass in its amended form, nothing will have

changed to offer NHPs any more protection than before. However, OTHER

provisions of C-51 will allow for things like:

* Making it an offence for a Natural Health Practitioner to continue

treating patients with a treatment if an Inspector tells them not to, as

Inspectors are permitted to make health decisions

* Inspectors are given unprecedented powers of search and seizure

without court supervision

* Penalties originally designed for large pharmaceutical companies can

now be imposed on Natural Health Practitioners and NHP manufacturers,

distributors and retailers, few of which would likely survive the financial

ramifications of prosecution

* Treaties and laws of other countries or international bodies can be

adopted as Canadian law by simple regulation, without approval from the

Parliament

None of the amendments put forth address, nor incorporate, any of the

concerns initially raised by the natural health industry.

Regardless of what the government pronounces to be the INTENT of the law, if

it’s not spelled out clearly, the law is guaranteed to mean exactly what it

states, which means that C-51, even in its amended form, does nothing to

protect NHPs from overzealous regulation.

In fact, C-51 in its amended form may actually be WORSE for the natural

health community than the original!

Another item causing alarm in the natural health community is the new

definition of what a natural health product actually is.

Proposed in Clause 3, Page 6 of the amendment is the new definition of a

natural health product, now defined as any plant or plant product and any

non-human animal product that affects your health and function. This means food

can be regulated as a “natural health product†as well, which STILL falls

under the category of DRUGS in the amended bill.

The Natural Health Product industry is adamant that the only workable and

agreeable regulations are those that protect NHPs from drug governing

legislation.

As of July 19, Parliament Members Steven Fletcher, Mark Inky and Vic Toews

are pro C-51. Judy Wasylycia- Leis is against. This _link_

(http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/What-Is-Your-MP-Voting.pdf) shows where the

Canadian MPs

stand on this issue as of July 19, and also includes phone numbers to all

members.

Renewed and Increased Concerns About Codex Harmonization

The Canadian government has been an active party to Codex, supporting the

direction of the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s nutrition committee, which

develops the international guidelines and standards on ‘safe’ nutrient

levels,

based on the _misapplication of scientific risk assessment to nutrients_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-t\

o-

be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx) .

Both the original and the amended bill have renewed concerns about how C-51

may help usher in the dreaded Codex regulations, as it appears the bill will

make a “confidential†agreement of dubious legality for cross-Atlantic

regulations legal.

Mr. Clement attempted to calm these concerns by introducing some

accountability into the amended C-51, changing the word “may†to

“shall†in C-51’s

section 20.4, turning the sentence into “the Minister shall establish,

committees for seeking advice on complex issues of science in medicine.â€

However, unless those committees are independently picked, and open to

public scrutiny, and unless the results are debated in the Canadian Parliament,

this proposed amendment does not at all protect against cherry-picking of

suitable industry yes-men. In fact, in the provisions in C-51, industry is

included among those the Minister may pick from for advisory committees. Since

that

is the very industry being regulated, the provisions leave the door wide

open for yet another age-old fox-guarding-the-hen-house-kind of scenario.

Additionally, since Canada, the United States and Mexico are set to 'unite'

under the NAFTA trade treaty, the 'codes and regulations' will likely be

standardized between the three countries, effectively shuffling any decisions

made on C-51 (and C-52) in Canada over the border into the U.S., sooner or

later.

Why are Some “Natural Health Advocates†Endorsing C-51?

It’s an unfortunate truth that many of your so-called Natural Health “

Advocates†are in fact working for Big Pharma’s benefit… not for yours.

Just as the Natural Products Association and the Council for Responsible

Nutrition (CRN) have been instrumental in forcing drug-like rules on dietary

supplements in the United States, most of the vitamin trade associations,

including the _Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA), are heavily controlled

by

industry_ (http://www.healthcanadaexposed.com/c51/chfa.asp) . In essence

being the voice of government within the industry, rather than the voice of

industry to the government.

These large companies actually benefit from increased regulatory hurdles

because it helps them squelch smaller competitors (who, by the way, often offer

you better quality goods and services).

As an example, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) in the U.S. has

been taken over by multinational drug and food companies. _Key players_

(http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron36.htm) include the nutritional

divisions of:

* Bayer

* BASF

* Cargill

* Monsanto

* Wyeth

* Archer Daniels Midland

 

Not exactly the most nutritionally responsible group imaginable…

Nutritional companies that participate in the CRN are in most cases owned by

pharmaceutical companies, or are heavily invested in pharmaceutical

companies. These include well-known names like:

* Mannatech

* Shaklee

* Herbalife

* GNLD International

* The Vitamin Shoppe

* GNC

These large nutritional companies, who have pharmaceutical industry ties,

are more than happy to promote legislation that helps eliminate competition

from small companies and start up ventures.

Likewise, the Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA) represents a federal

mandate.

As _Nutri-Net Canada_

(http://www.nutrinetcanada-nnc.ca/useredits/File/News%20Release%20June5.pdf) ,

the CHFA is the legal agent and overseer of joint

activities for the development of a national vision, strategy, and the

development of operational plans for the entire Functional Foods and Natural

Health

Products Industry. Part of that strategy is to define the scope of the

industry.

The CHFA has been involved in the development, and the subsequent

amendments, of Bill C-51 all along, and is charged with the responsibility to

encourage

and facilitate regulatory compliance. It’s difficult to ignore the

breadcrumbs leading right back to Big Pharma, no matter which way you look at

it.

The Natural Health Practitioners of Canada similarly issued a somewhat

flimsy _NHPC member advisory on C-51_

(http://www.nhpcanada.org/Content_Files/Files/NHPC_Position_BillC51_June19am.pdf\

) , indicating that C-51 would likely not

affect its members negatively.

What’s the Current Status of C-51?

Despite some reports to the contrary – including an _article from the

British Alliance for Natural Health_

(http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/canadians-beat-bill-c-51-—-watch-back-door) ,

who erroneously reported that C-51 was

killed and the matter closed as of June 20 – bill C-51is still alive and

kicking.

 

The Canadian Parliament is now in recess until October. When they return,

they will likely push C-51 through additional readings unless the public

opposition is heard loud and crystal clear.

This may pose a dilemma, as October is two months away, and even adults

these days have the attention span of gnats. In the end it is up to you to

continue expressing your opposition to C-51. If you believe that C-51 is a law

that

is not in your and your family’s best interest, you can make your voice

heard by signing the _StopC51 petition_

(http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/StopC51) .

Watch Out! C-52 May Be Even Worse, and Could Usher in C-51 by Proxy if

Passed

It appears C-51 is so valuable to its intended benefactors that another

current bill may have a built-in rescue hatch, just in case C-51 can’t make

it

into law on its own merit.

Enter big brother: _bill C-52_

(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3397415 & Languag\

e%20=e & Mode=1 & File=29.) , which amends and

updates the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

In his _Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-52 and the Canada Consumer Product

Safety Act_

(http://nhppa.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/bill_c-52_draft_discussion_paper.pd\

f) , Constitutional lawyer Shawn Buckley warns that bill C-52 –

although it does not specifically target natural health products – could

set a precedent where Canadians will learn to accept removal of their rights in

the name of product safety.

C-52 removes a number of civil rights, including abolishing the law of

trespass. C-52 also grants the state the right to seize property without court

order or without even reporting the seizure to a court for an indefinite

period,

and gives the state the right to assume control over movement of private

property without court order and without concern for safety, just to name a few

of the heinous inclusions in this bill.

According to Mr. Buckley, the bill goes so far as to permitting the state to

take control of business and private property for trivial violations of the

Act or Regulations, even if those violations do not in any way pose a safety

problem.

Additionally, if bill C-51 is defeated but bill C-52 passes, bill C-52 could

be made applicable to Natural Health Products by way of a regulatory

amendment to Schedule I of bill C-52! Put simply, C-52 could then be used to

take

away Natural Health Products in the name of safety.

Bill C-52 has already been through second reading and only needs one more

reading to go through the House of Commons and be sent to the Senate.

 

 

Related Articles:

 

_Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal in Canada!_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-t\

o-be-made-illegal-in-canada

..aspx)

 

_What You Can do About Codex, A Threat to Your Health Freedom_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/14/codex.aspx)

 

_The Codex Conundrum and How it Affects Supplements in America_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/04/codex-conundrum.a\

spx)